Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Promising Practices: A Literature Review of Technology Use by Underserved Students (Zielezinski & Darling-Hammond, 2016)

How can technologies and digital learning experiences be used to support underserved, under-resourced, and underprepared students? This report summarizes research findings about the conditions and practices that support positive outcomes of technology use for these student populations.

2.
Zielezinski, M.B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising practices:
A literature review of technology use by underserved students. Stanford, CA:
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Portions of this document may be reprinted with permission from the Stanford
Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). To reprint, please use the
following language: “Printed with permission, Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education. http://edpolicy.stanford.edu.” For more information, contact us
at scope@stanford.edu.
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
http://edpolicy.stanford.edu
@scope_stanford
oStanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education
sc e

3.
T
Acknowledgements
his study was prepared with support from the Mott Foundation and the Alliance
for Excellent Education. The authors gratefully acknowledge their collaboration
and support. A special thanks to Shelley Goldman for her poignant feedback and
guidance throughout the process and to Jon Snyder for providing comments on the
endless versions of this document.
The research was conducted independently by the Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education and does not represent the views of the sponsors. The Stanford
Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) was founded in 2008 to
address issues of educational opportunity, access, and equity in the United States
and internationally. SCOPE engages faculty from across Stanford University and
from other universities to work on a shared agenda of research, policy analysis,
educational practice, and dissemination of ideas to improve quality and equality of
education from early childhood through college. More information about SCOPE is
available at https://edpolicy.stanford.edu.

5.
1Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
H
Summary of Key Findings
ow can technologies and digital learning experiences be used to support
underserved, under-resourced, and underprepared students? This report
summarizes research findings about the conditions and practices that support
positive outcomes of technology use for these student populations. Related to
technology specifically, we find that:
1. Underserved students benefit from opportunities to learn that
include one-to-one access to devices. One-to-one access refers to
environments where there is one device available for each student in
the learning environment. One-to-one learning environments vary
widely in terms of the time spent using devices, the overall availabil-
ity of devices (e.g., whether the students can bring them home), and
the quality of the instructional materials accessed with the device.
While this is true, the literature in this review supports the notion
that students may benefit from opportunities to learn when there is
at least one device per student.
2. High-speed Internet access is needed to prevent user issues when
implementing digital learning. Digital learning often requires
Internet access, and this need is growing with the proliferation of
online audio and video resources. Research indicates that fast and
reliable Internet connectivity is important for digital learning.
3. Underserved students benefit from technology interactions designed
to promote high levels of interactivity and emphasize discovery. The
design of technology tools allows for different types of interactions
between the learner and the technology. In the literature, designs that
support interactive and constructivist activities were demonstrated
to support learning by minority, low-SES, and other underserved
students, specifically those highly interactive activities that allow
students to craft their own understanding of complex content. These
include tools that provide students with opportunities to represent
thinking in multiple forms (e.g., text, numbers, symbols, graphs,
charts, pictures, and video).
4. Successful digital learning environments are characterized by the
right blend of teachers and technology. The role of the teacher in
blended and fully online learning environments varies widely. One
study in the review reports specific findings about digitally mediated
learning by underserved secondary students with varying levels of
teacher support. The study highlights student satisfaction in environ-
ments characterized by higher levels of teacher support for student

6.
2 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
learning and opportunities for interactions among students. The
authors also recommend the use of real-time digital feedback in digi-
tal learning environments. A meta-analysis of research on blended
learning across a range of education levels found that purely on-
line learning led to only slightly differing results than face-to-face
learning, but students in blended learning environments performed
significantly better as compared to those in face-to-face conditions
that do not include digitally mediated instruction.
With regard to the conditions and practices that support learning by this population,
we find that:
1. Underserved students benefit from learning activities that focus on
the development of higher order thinking skills (such as problem-
solving, making inferences, analyzing, and synthesizing) and 21st
century skills. These should be prioritized over activities targeted
at basic skill development (such as memorizing facts and applying
rules). For example, research indicates that simulations and games
with certain foci such as higher order thinking skills, development of
21st century skills, or strengthening brain function are beneficial for
minority, low-SES, and other underserved students. These findings
are consistent with the literature on technology for learning by the
general population of K–12 students, which also shows that digital
learning supporting problem-solving and other higher order think-
ing skills has more positive effects than digital learning opportuni-
ties that emphasize the development of basic skills.
2. Underserved students benefit from learning activities that draw on
culture and community, specifically activities that integrate cultur-
ally relevant practices, foster student development of expertise, and
highlight this expertise by providing opportunities for students to
share their knowledge and skills with authentic audiences. Digital
learning activities that were connected to the learners’ cultures and
communities were evident in a number of studies. This research in-
dicates that the combination of cultural relevance, community, and
authentic audience led to improvement in students’ writing skills,
motivation, and interest in school-related activities.
3. Underserved students benefit from learning activities that provide
them with opportunities to drive their own learning. This includes
activities that allow students to become content creators. For in-
stance, students are involved in the learning process when they are
provided with choices about which digital task to complete, how
knowledge will be demonstrated via technology, or the ways the

7.
3Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
technology will be used. This type of student agency was featured
in three different studies and was manifested in a variety of ways. It
included the use of technology to provide students with a choice of
instructional materials and the use of technology to allow students
to become active agents in their learning (e.g., making decisions
about how a task was done). Activities that involve students as
content producers also show links to promising positive outcomes
for students. In a number of studies, minority, low-SES, and other
underserved students were engaged in content creation projects, and
in these activities students demonstrated improved engagement, self-
efficacy, attitude toward school, and skill development.

8.
4 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Introduction
or many years, educators, researchers, and policy makers looking for strategies
to close the achievement gap and improve student learning have sought solutions
involving new uses of technology, especially for students considered to be at risk
of failing. However, the results of various technology initiatives for these students
have been mixed. As often as not, the introduction of technology into classrooms
has failed to achieve the grand expectations proponents anticipated. The educational
landscape is replete with stories and studies about how specific student populations
were unable to benefit from particular innovations that feature the use of technology
for teaching and learning.
However, there are successes among these efforts that when taken together re-
veal some promising practices for technology use by underserved students. This
report, based on a review of more than 50 studies and reports published between
2003 and 2013, describes these approaches—particularly as they apply to stu-
dents considered to be at risk of failing courses and exit examinations or drop-
ping out. Broadly, our focus includes underserved, under-resourced, and under-
prepared students who have been placed at risk by the organizations that serve
them and societal structures in which they live. Specifically, we examine research
reporting on students in grades 6-12 who have been labeled as minority, low-SES,
low achieving, under-credited, or not on track to graduate. Moving forward, use
of the term “underserved” in this report will refer specifically to students with
one or more of these social markers. This is not intended to be a comprehensive
definition of “underserved”. Instead it is the operational lens used to delineate the
scope of this review. With this focus, we seek to understand how technologies and
digital learning experiences can be used to support the learning process for this
subset of historically underserved student populations.
This population of interest includes more than 16 million U.S. students who live
below the poverty line (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2013) and an additional
8 million who qualify for free or reduced price school lunch (Digest of Education
Statistics, 2013a, p. 2). Altogether, these children in poverty now comprise 50% of
our nation’s public school students.
This population of interest also includes the nation’s 23.8 million minority students,
who account for nearly half of the school population, and many are underserved
by their school systems. For example, nearly half of Hispanics, African Americans,
and Native Americans do not graduate on time with their classmates (J. Watson
& Gemin, 2008). Unfortunately, this is not unusual: more than 1 million U.S. high
school students drop out each year, an average of one student every 29 seconds (J.
Watson & Gemin, 2008). Studies show that on nearly every indicator of educa-
tional access—school funding, qualified teachers, high-quality curriculum, books,
F

9.
5Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
materials, and computers—low-income students and students of color have less ac-
cess than White and affluent students (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Research on technology, specifically in terms of reports on access and use, has
begun to shift over the last decade. A series of national studies provides snap-
shots about the technology landscape over time (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010a;
Gray, Thomas, & Lewis 2010b; Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser,
2013). The two earlier studies give information about access in the classroom
(Gray et al., 2010a; Gray et al., 2010b), while a more recent study looks at ac-
cess more broadly, including students’ technology use at home and via mobile
devices (Madden et al., 2013). This exemplifies a shifting focus from access and
infrastructure in schools to the “anytime/anywhere” computing that has become
popular with the rise of mobile computing and steady increases in reliable high-
speed Internet access. Research at the national level, however, has been slow to
catch up, despite the rapid advances that characterize our technology-rich society.
For example, when this review was conducted in 2014, the most recent relevant
national report about in-school technology use was from 2009, one year before
the iPad was introduced, and only 3% of the studies included in this review fo-
cused exclusively on mobile technology. Given the lag between research and pub-
lication and frequent releases of improved hardware and software, it is difficult
to garner a clear and up-to-date picture of technology in U.S. schools today. This
caveat is particularly relevant to a review of the literature, the approach we used
in this study. The existing national research does, however, point to trends that are
consistent with the notion of a persistent digital divide. Specifically, these studies
reveal a disparity in access to computers and their frequency of use between low-
and high- poverty schools (Gray et al., 2010a; Gray et al., 2010b).
Outside of school, additional inequitable access is also evident. Two surveys con-
ducted in 2012 reveal disparities in hardware ownership and Internet access across
socioeconomic levels and racial/ethnic minorities (Madden et al., 2013; Purcell,
Heaps, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). Both low-SES teens and racial/ethnic mi-
norities are less likely to use the Internet than their more affluent and white peers.
Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities, especially Hispanics, are less likely to own
a computer, and low-SES youth are less likely to own a tablet. This is noteworthy
given that students with computers in their homes have higher GPAs, and are more
likely to graduate, less likely to be suspended, and less likely to engage in criminal
activity than those without computers in their homes (Beltran, Das, & Fairlie, 2006).
Although there is not a difference across SES or race in terms of smartphone owner-
ship, African Americans are more likely than whites or Hispanics to use their mobile
device as their primary Internet touch point, which has implications for the ways the
Internet can be used outside of school. Using the Internet on a smartphone limits an
individual’s capacity to engage in content creation, content editing/remixing, deep on-
line research, substantial word processing projects, and a number of other formal and
informal learning activities. On the flip side, a complete lack of mobile Internet use

10.
6 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
precludes the type of anytime/anywhere involvement that is crucial to youth engage-
ment with the wide variety of digital learning tools that rely on just-in-time online
access, real-time digital interactions, and up-to-date information sharing.
The importance of reliable high-speed Internet access is increasing as technol-
ogy evolves and inequitable broadband access patterns have been flagged as a na-
tional priority. In June 2013, in response to the fact that only 20% of U.S. students
had access to high-speed Internet connectivity, President Obama announced the
ConnectED initiative, presenting the goal of getting 99% of U.S. students connected
by 2018 (Obama, 2013). Advances toward this goal and others like it necessitate
rigorous updates to school infrastructure and technology access nationwide. While
such enhancements might begin to address the digital divide, increased access alone
is not sufficient for improving educational outcomes for underserved students. Once
access is granted, we must consider how technology can be used to support learning
by those who need it the most.
To further develop our understanding of how digital tools can be used to support
underserved, under-resourced, and underprepared students, we conducted a com-
prehensive literature review, taking into account more than 50 studies, white papers,
reports, and reviews primarily published between 2003 and 2013. We introduce and
describe a Digital Learning Ecosystem developed during the review process as well
as the key findings and recommendations for practice emerging from this review.
Digital Learning Ecosystem
The Digital Learning Ecosystem (see Exhibit 1, next page) was developed in our
review process, and is based on an in-depth analysis of 23 highly relevant reports
and reviews that synthesize the findings from over 2,000 empirical articles about
technology for learning1
. From these, over 450 evidence-based claims were excerpted
and organized thematically as a way to see beyond individual studies and holisti-
cally visualize the variables that influence digital learning and their relationship to
one another. The resulting framework reveals the complexity of the Digital Learning
Ecosystem and illustrates that learning outcomes are the result of interactions
among numerous variables within a complex system. No single variable can ensure
a desired outcome, as all the components within the ecosystem are mutually interde-
pendent. The research suggests that taken as a collection, each component must be
evaluated in terms of its alignment to all other variables if sound decisions are to be
made about the use of technology for learning. In the coming section, each compo-
nent of the Digital Learning Ecosystem is introduced. In the subsequent section, this
ecosystem is used to frame the findings from our review of the last decade of empiri-
cal work about underserved students learning with technology.
The ecosystem is designed with the learners at the center. Whether we are talking
about retirees using Massive Open Online Courses or ninth graders using games and

13.
9Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
The technology and the learning context interact to provide a unique set of conditions
for learning. The characteristics of learners mediate their responses to these conditions
and shape their engagement in the learning activity. Together, these variables constitute
a distinct experience for each individual learner, and the experience in turn enables a
wide variety of outcomes that come to be associated with the use of particular digital
resources. This ecosystem is more evolved than the binary conceptions of technology
for learning common at the end of the 20th century. The early years of the digital di-
vide were characterized in terms of having or lacking access, and little information was
collected or reported about the details of use. Even now, it is common for researchers
to report on some but not all aspects of the Digital Learning Ecosystem presented here,
and there is little explanation given for what is included and what is left out.
The major benefit of the ecosystem approach used here is that it makes clear the need
to understand outcomes for learners with regards to the multiplicity of variables that
impact both the learners’ experiences and the potential outcomes associated with
technology use. We cannot assume that the success of digital learning activity in one
classroom will generalize to success in another classroom without also understanding
details about the technology, the learning context, and the desired learning outcomes.
For instance, Grimes and Warschauer (2008) studied one-to-one laptop implementa-
tion and observed different outcomes according to SES level. Rather than attributing
this simply to the demographics of the student population, they looked more deeply at
the learning context and determined that high- and mid-level SES schools frequently
hired teachers with stated interest in science and technology, a factor that correspond-
ed with extensive use of the laptops in the classroom. Teacher interest in technology,
previous experience with digital tools, and technological literacy proved to be essen-
tial facets of the learning context, which was critical for understanding variation in
learning outcomes associated with the use of technology. This is one of many elements
within the ecosystem that could be overlooked in a simpler framework for examining
educational technology.
In the remainder of this report, the ecosystem is used as a frame for presenting the
findings from the literature about technology use and learning by the specific learner
populations of interest (see Appendix A for methodological details including study se-
lection and analysis). Each finding presented points to a specific variable in the Digital
Learning Ecosystem, offering details from the literature on how it can be leveraged
to best support learning outcomes for underserved students. When considering these
levers for change, remember that strong alignment among all the elements within the
Digital Learning Ecosystem in a given context supersedes any of the specific practices
listed below. The potential for achieving the positive outcomes associated with these
practices decreases when there is poor alignment between a given practice and the
other elements within the ecosystem—and likewise increases when a practice is clearly
aligned with the available technology, specified context, characteristics of the learners,
and desired learning outcome.

14.
10 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Findings
Technology Sphere
The technology sphere refers to infrastructure, access, and features of the digital
learning resources available to the learners. Several key recommendations within this
sphere are presented below given the potential of each to set the stage for productive
learning by underserved youth.
Underserved students benefit from opportunities to learn that include one-to-one
access to devices. One-to-one access refers to environments where there is one de-
vice available for each student. There is wide variation within one-to-one environ-
ments, including the time spent using devices, the overall availability of devices (e.g.
, whether the students can bring them home), and the quality of the instructional
materials used on the device. While this variation can be profoundly influential,
the literature supports the notion that students often benefit from opportunities to
learn when there is at least one device per student (Grimes & Warschauer, 2008;
Maninger, 2006; Rizhaupt, Higgins, & Allred, 2010; Rizhaupt, Higgins, & Allred,
2011; Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2009). For example,
Grimes and Warschauer (2008) studied “the implementation of a one-to-one laptop
program in three diverse schools in California. The program was carried out in one
largely Hispanic low socioeconomic junior high school, one largely Asian–American
high-SES K–8 school, and the gifted program in a medium-SES elementary school”
(p. 305). Their findings indicate that a majority of teachers found the laptops to be
useful for learning by “at-risk” youth and that low-SES students demonstrated sig-
nificantly higher gains in mathematics as compared to the high-SES students in the
laptop program. Regardless of SES, the one-to-one laptop implementation increased
students’ likelihood to engage in the writing process, practice in-depth research
skills, and develop multimedia skills through “interpretation…and production of
knowledge” (p. 319).
High-speed Internet access is needed to prevent user issues when implementing digi-
tal learning. Digital learning often requires Internet access, and this need is grow-
ing with the proliferation of online audio and video resources. Kim and Lee (2011)
found that underprivileged students participating in blended and online courses
reported that a faster Internet connection would have improved their learning expe-
riences. Grimes and Warschaeur (2008) found that when students were given one-
to-one laptop access as well as access to the Internet at school, they made use of this
at least several times per week: “We witnessed online information access by students
for three main purposes: to provide background knowledge, to facilitate ‘just in
time’ learning, and to support research projects” (p. 317). Fast and reliable Internet
access allows teachers and students to support learning in real time.

15.
11Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
Underserved students benefit from digital activities designed to promote high levels
of interactivity and emphasize discovery. The design of technology tools allows for
different types of interactions between the learner and the technology. In the lit-
erature, designs that support certain types of interactions repeatedly demonstrated
support for learning by minorities, low-SES students, and other underserved stu-
dents. Several design considerations that promote interactivity and exploration are
presented below.
First, underserved students benefit from technology interactions designed to promote
high levels of interactivity (Bos, 2007; Callow & Zammit, 2012; Elam, Donham,
& Soloman, 2012; Figg & McCartney, 2010; Watson & Watson, 2011). The level
of interactivity refers to the amount and type of interactions permitted between
learners, technology, and content, where a high level is characterized by frequent
opportunities to manipulate, examine, and create new content in a variety of forms.
For example, in one study, students measure the heart rate of their peers during
various activities and use this to generate and test hypotheses. In another, students
used handheld GPS devices to participate in a scavenger hunt. Using interactive ap-
proaches such as these has been found in several studies to be successful in helping
low-income students pass state competency tests (Bos, 2007) and master complex
new materials (Hannafin & Foshay, 2008).
Second, underserved students benefit from technology interactions designed to em-
phasize discovery and exploration rather than direct instruction (Bos, 2007; Harness
& Drossman, 2011). For instance, a design that includes features of technology
that “generate fluency, [and allow students to] create and modify representational
forms is used to develop the dimensionality of a quadratic function through explo-
ration, problem solving, and through making and exploring virtual environments”
(Bos, 2007, p. 356). Students who were allowed to explore the concept of quadratic
functions in this study significantly outperformed those who learned via lecture and
note-taking. In this example, students constructed understanding by working direct-
ly with graphs and tables. Afterward, they answered guided open response questions
to help further develop their understanding of quadratic functions and checked this
understanding through dialogue with other students (Bos, 2007). Experiential learn-
ing such as this allows students to develop their own understanding through explo-
ration prior to direct instruction. This strategy is augmented when combined with
built-in opportunities for students to synthesize and apply what they are learning,
for example, by engaging in face-to-face or digitally mediated dialogue with peers
and teachers, capturing emerging knowledge through written reflection, or complet-
ing other informal formative assessments.
Examples of high levels of interactivity and exploration include technology tools
that allow the learner to engage with data and complex content, and represent
thinking in multiple forms. Technology tools and their specific features and affor-
dances structure the interactions students have as they engage in digital learning

16.
12 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
activities. Such features and affordances can be leveraged to provide learners with
opportunities to engage productively with their peers or directly with content. In the
literature, highly interactive tools that promote data analysis, engagement with com-
plex content, and opportunities to convey understanding in multiple forms repeated-
ly demonstrated support for learning by underserved students. These are introduced
and exemplified below.
First, underserved students benefit from learning with technology tools that allow
the learner to engage in data collection and analysis (Bos, 2007; Elam et al., 2012;
Grimes & Warschauer, 2008; Marino, 2009). In studying one-to-one laptop imple-
mentation, Grimes and Warschauer (2008) observed the following:
Laptops also allowed students to better gather and analyze their own
data as part of the research process. This principally took place in
science and mathematics instruction, as students analyzed data with
spreadsheets. The most interesting example we witnessed of data
collection and analysis was at Flower, which had purchased a set of
scientific probes that can be attached to the laptops for gathering and
uploading of data related to temperature, voltage, light, force, mo-
tion, and chemical composition. In one lesson we observed, students
worked in groups to measure each other’s heart rates in various states
(sitting, standing, jumping) and upload the data to computers where
it was plotted into graphs. In the process, they developed and tested
hypotheses about the affect of various combinations of activity and
rest on heart rate. (p. 318)
In this study, 82% of teachers in low-, middle-, and high-SES schools found that the
laptops enabled them to “get more involved with in-depth research” (p. 318). In ad-
dition to engaging in data collection and analysis, the low-SES students in the laptop
implementation study showed significantly higher gains in math than those in the
high-SES schools.
In another study, Elam et al. (2012) invited disadvantaged teens from 10 rural and
financially disadvantaged school districts to participate in a science-focused summer
camp. Several of the camp activities focused on the use of data, including a campus-
wide scavenger hunt using GPS and a kite design project: “Using basic engineering
design principles, simulation software, and fundamentals of aerodynamics, student
teams designed, built, and tested various kite designs” (pg. 38). In this study, stu-
dents showed improved attitudes towards science and an increase in science career
interest.
Second, underserved students benefit from learning with technology tools that allow
the learner to engage with multiple methods for accessing and understanding com-
plex conceptual content. Technology that allows students to manipulate simulations

17.
13Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
and interactive models can support the development of understanding difficult con-
cepts (Bos, 2007; Bottge, Rueda, & Skivington, 2006; Samsonov, Pedersen, & Hill,
2006). For instance, Bos (2007) found that low-achieving students using an interac-
tive instructional environment to study quadratic functions had significantly greater
mathematical achievement than those in a control group who learned via traditional
lecture, note-taking, and the drill and practice approach. The technology environ-
ment enabled students to construct their own understandings of quadratic functions
by manipulating graphs and tables, answering open response questions, and engag-
ing in dialogue about their findings. Bottge et al. (2006) also reported significant
results in mathematics achievement resulting from video-based instruction modules
that provided students with access to multiple means for understanding the complex
content. Within the video environment, annotations were used to scaffold students
towards identifying important elements in the problem. For example:
The eight-minute video problem in Fraction of the Cost was developed
locally and stars three middle school students who decide to build a
skateboard ramp. To answer the subproblems in the video, students
needed to calculate percent of money in a savings account and sales
tax on a purchase. They also had to read a tape measure, convert
feet to inches, decipher building plans, construct a table of materials,
compute mixed fractions, estimate and compute combinations, and
calculate total cost of building the ramp. Several learning tools on the
CD-ROM helped students understand concepts in the overall problem.
For example, one module showed a three-dimensional ramp that stu-
dents could rotate to see all sides. The 2 x 4s (i.e., dimension lumber)
used in building the ramp were color- coded to enable students to see
more clearly which lengths corresponded to which parts of the sche-
matic drawing. In another module, students could build the ramp by
dragging lengths of 2 x 4s out of a stack of lumber and attaching them
in the correct way. (Bottge et al., 2006, p. 398)
In both examples, students interact with digital content that was designed to enrich
their understanding of complex content. In the first example, students manipulated
graphs and tables then constructed their understanding through writing and dia-
logue. In the second example, students engaged with video content that included
instructional supports, interacted with 3-D digital models, and applied their under-
standing by building a product in the digital environment. These are two examples
of the ways that technology can be utilized to provide multiple methods for learners
to grasp traditionally difficult concepts.
Third, underserved students benefit from learning with technology tools that allow
the learner to engage with content from a variety of sources and represent think-
ing in multiple forms. Technology should enable students to communicate with one
another, grapple with content, and demonstrate their understanding in a variety of

18.
14 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
ways (Bos, 2007; Callow & Zammit, 2012; Hall & Damico, 2007; Marino, 2009;
Watson & Watson, 2011). While similar to the recommendation above that focuses
on the representations of complex content provided within a digital environment,
this recommendation is broader in that it encompasses the presentation of content
from a variety of sources within and between digital environments. It also addresses
the means for making sense of content and the creation of new content by students.
Ideally, technology should provide multiple avenues for each. For example, students
should not merely read about a new science concept in a digital textbook. They
should read, highlight, and annotate the text; share these annotations; and then
explore the concept with relevant simulations, watch videos, participate in digital
discussions with experts, search for and analyze additional sources of information
about the concept, and construct their own original content to convey their devel-
oping understanding about the subject. Additionally, the type of content students
create should not be limited to a textual description but instead should allow for
the integration of text, audio, and video as methods for recording and sharing their
understanding. Callow and Zammit (2012) present multiple case studies illustrating
uses of technology that present content in multiple forms. In one case, the teacher
presents an excerpt from the book the class is reading on the Smart Board. The
excerpt is enriched with “hyperlinks to visual images, maps, word definitions and
pronouns, personalised with students’ names. The students used highlighters to
feature key vocabulary on print [versions of the excerpt]” (p. 47). Through the use
of technology, students are seeing content in a myriad of forms as it comes alive with
maps, videos, definitions, and more. This and the examples above provide some
detail about the ways in which highly interactive technologies can be used to enrich
learning experiences by providing students with opportunities to engage with data,
interrogate complex content in a variety of forms, explore content from multiple
perspectives by drawing on a variety of sources, and demonstrate new understand-
ing by creating original content.
Digital learning environments, characterized by significant levels of teacher support,
content practice with real-time digital feedback, and opportunities for social interac-
tions among students, show promise for underserved students. Kim and Lee (2011)
produced the only study in this review to look at the conditions under which there
was a comparison between different levels of teacher support in digital learning en-
vironments. In this multiregional study involving 1,943 Korean students (of whom
915 were identified as underprivileged) students engaged in online courses using
Flash animation and video learning resources. Students progressed through learning
sessions by completing online tasks individually and engaging in group discussions.
In this study, there were two different types of digital learning: online learning sup-
ported by a homeroom teacher (blended condition), and students engaging in self
study without the help of any teachers (online condition).
Kim and Lee (2011) found that “teacher assistance [present in the blended condition
but not the fully online condition] seems to be mandatory for the online learning of

19.
15Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
underprivileged students” (p. 2403). Students illustrated high levels of satisfaction
in the blended learning condition because of the real-time support and encourage-
ment they received from homeroom teachers, an element not available in the fully
online condition. When students were asked to select the area where they experi-
enced the most personal development, there were several advantages for those who
experienced the blended context. Learners who worked with teachers alongside
their online experience were much more likely to say that they developed an interest
in the subject and increased their academic standing, while learners who did all of
their work online were much more likely to say that they experienced no change in
their learning (that is, that digital learning was ineffective). Additionally, the stu-
dents in the online condition reported satisfaction associated with opportunities for
interactions among learners. Finally, real-time digital feedback was identified as a
component necessary for successful digital learning experiences (Kim & Lee, 2011).
However, little information is given about the nature of this feedback or how it
looks2
. Because this study was conducted in Korea and learner characteristics there
may vary from those in the United States, this research does not provide a promise
of success but instead warrants further investigation into various digital learning
models and the associated levels of teacher support that are used in U.S. elementary
and secondary schools.
Some additional insight can be garnered from a meta-analysis of 45 studies of
blended learning across a range of education levels. Means, Toyama, Murphy, and
Bakia (2013) found that purely online learning led to only slightly differing results
than face-to-face learning, but students in blended learning environments performed
significantly better as compared to those in face-to-face conditions. As deeper analy-
sis reveals, “Studies using blended learning also tended to involve additional learn-
ing time, instructional resources, and course elements that encourage interactions
among learners. This confounding leaves open the possibility that one or all of these
other practice variables contributed to the particularly positive outcomes for blend-
ed learning” (Means et al., 2013, p. 2). Here again, the findings point to potential
design considerations including the provision of ample time and abundant resources
as well as an echoing of Kim and Lee’s (2011) recommendation to include opportu-
nities for peer interaction. These findings also reinforce the need for future research
in elementary and secondary schools to shed light on the models that mobilize the
right blend of teachers and technology and identify the most influential features of
successful blended learning tools.
Learning Context Sphere
The context sphere consists of the learning community, the learning goals, and the
learning activity. While there is some overlap between the digital resources consid-
ered in the previous section and the learning activity presented in this sphere, there
is a distinction. Discussion of the digital resources in the technology sphere is related

20.
16 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
to the specific design of the technology, while the learning activity has more to do
with the choices about using technology to meet certain lesson objectives and goals
within a learning environment. Within this sphere, three major recommendations
were identified that show promise for stimulating active participation in effective
digital learning activities for underserved youth.
Underserved students benefit from learning activities that focus on the development
of higher order thinking skills (such as problem-solving, making inferences, ana-
lyzing, and synthesizing) and 21st century skills. These should be prioritized over
activities targeted at basic skill development (such as memorizing facts and apply-
ing rules). Consistent with the literature on technology for learning by the general
population of all K–12 students, the literature regarding underserved students re-
veals that digital learning supporting problem-solving and other higher order think-
ing skills has more positive effects than digital learning opportunities that emphasize
the development of basic skills (Barley, Lauer, Arens, Apthorp, Englert, Snow, &
Akiba, 2002; Bos, 2007; Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Wenglinsky, 1998). Warschauer
and Matuchniak (2010) conducted a literature review about the equitable use of and
access to technology by various learner populations. The following excerpt describes
one finding in support of this recommendation:
the drill and practice activities favored in low-SES schools tend to be
ineffective, whereas the uses of technology disproportionately used
in high-SES schools achieve positive results. The best evidence of this
discrepancy comes from Wenglinsky (2005), who analyzed data from
the NAEP in 1996, 1998, and 2000. Overall, Wenglinsky found a
consistently negative interaction between frequency of technology
use and test score outcomes in mathematics (at both the fourth and
eighth grade), science (at both the fourth and eighth grade), and read-
ing (at the eighth grade; see Table 10). This appears to be because of
the negative effects of drill and practice activities that are used pre-
dominately with low-SES students. In contrast, the more constructivist
educational technology activities typically used with high-SES students
were correlated with higher test score outcomes…For example, in
mathematics, Wenglinsky found that the use of simulations/ applica-
tions in eighth grade and games in the fourth grade positively affected
test scores, whereas drill and practice at the eighth grade negatively
affected the scores. In science, games (fourth grade), word processing
(fourth grade), simulations (fourth and eighth grade) and data analysis
(fourth grade) all positively affected test scores. And in eighth grade
reading, use of computers for writing activities positively affected test
scores, but use of computers for grammar/punctuation or for reading
activities (which usually involve drill or tutorials) negatively affected
test scores[.] (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010, p. 205)

21.
17Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) utilize standardized test scores as evidence to sup-
port the idea of prioritizing digital learning opportunities that focus on higher order
thinking over those that focus on basic skill development. Another instance of this in
the literature comes from a study of 48 “at-risk” high school mathematics students
in Texas. In this experiment, students spent 55 minutes per day, working through six
lessons that followed the cycle: “engage, explore, explain, and elaborate” (p. 356).
Through this cycle, students utilized simulations to manipulate information on interac-
tive graphs and tables. They followed an exploration and were prompted to explain
and elaborate on certain phenomena they observed. Students who engaged in this
intervention outscored those learning in more traditional forms. The authors conclude
that “results are deeply embedded in the core of the learning process and the necessity
to create an environment that involves all students in high level thinking skills and to
promote problem solving versus a more drill-practice approach”(Bos, 2007, p. 366).
These examples point to the utility of simulations and digital games for the devel-
opment of higher order skills. The literature also indicates that these are useful for
promoting 21st century thinking skills and brain development (for example, work-
ing memory and vocabulary development). Specifically, educational games have been
linked to skill and concept development for underserved students (Alloway, 2012;
Rizhaupt et al., 2010; Rizhaupt et al., 2011). Ritzhaupt, Higgins, and Allred found
that students who played single and multiplayer games demonstrated an increase in
motivation, interest, and self-efficacy (and potentially academic achievement). Others
have noted the importance of using digital learning environments (such as games and
simulations) with features that are appropriate for the students’ prior knowledge and
skill level. For instance, Marino (2009) found that struggling readers using the interac-
tive digital program Alien Rescue benefited far less than proficient readers when using
the tools designed for generating hypotheses. Because this feature was not a good fit
for this population, the authors recommend selecting digital learning experiences that
support cognitive processes and student access of “out of reach” activities.
Alloway’s (2012) research shows that when there is a good alignment between the
learner and the features of the learning activity, there is increased potential benefit for
the students. The study illustrates that students utilizing training games at regular in-
tervals can strengthen and enhance a variety of cognitive capacities, including working
memory, information processing, vocabulary, and cognitive flexibility. Fifteen strug-
gling high school students used an online program called Jungle Memory, made up of
three games. Each provided opportunities for brain training, for instance:
In Game 1, letters and words appeared on a 4x4 grid. The working
memory component was to remember the location of the target
stimuli within a set time period. In Game 2, a letter appeared on
the screen with a red dot on it. The letter may also be rotated. The
working memory component was [when students] had to identify a
letter orientation (processing) and remember the location of a dot

22.
18 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
(memory). In the final game, the student was shown math problems
of increasing difficulty and had to solve it (processing component).
They then had to recall the solutions in the correct sequence
(memory). (Alloway, 2012, p. 200).
Findings from this study indicated increases in working memory, vocabulary, and
mathematics achievement for the students who used the game but not for students
in the control group. Thus our review of the literature indicates that simulations and
games may be considered valuable resources for the development of higher order
thinking skills and 21st century skills, particularly if there is a strong alignment be-
tween the strengths, interests, and needs of the learner and the features of the learn-
ing activity.
Underserved students benefit from learning activities that draw on culture and
community, specifically activities that integrate culturally relevant practices, foster
student development of expertise, and highlight this expertise by providing oppor-
tunities for students to share their knowledge and skills with authentic audiences.
Digital learning activities that were connected to the learners’ cultures and commu-
nities were more successful than those that were not culturally relevant. One form
of cultural relevance was observed when students engaged family and community
members in authentic content creation tasks such as creating a family movie (Figg
& McCartney, 2010). Another form of cultural relevance was seen when Hall and
Damico (2007) provided African American 10th, 11th, and 12th graders with
interest-driven opportunities to create representations of their thinking about lo-
cal social justice issues, prioritizing cultural relevance by encouraging students
to make use of language that they were usually asked to suppress but is common
within their communities.
Meaningful activities foregrounding culture and community were observed with
respect to authentic audience, opportunities for communication, and the develop-
ment of student expertise. In one study, peers, family, and community members were
mobilized to provide students with an authentic audience for sharing multimodal
creations. Parents enjoyed authentic opportunities to communicate with their chil-
dren about learning (Figg & McCartney, 2010). Additionally, authenticity was cre-
ated through opportunities that honored students’ roles as experts, for example, the
provision of opportunities for the teacher to learn from the students and opportuni-
ties for parents to see children as experts (Figg & McCartney, 2010).
This project conducted by Figg & McCartney (2010) was culturally relevant because
the students were asked to “draw upon oral or biographical family history,” making
them each experts in their own topic (p. 54). This cultural relevance was successful
in part because of the well-designed, highly scaffolded structure of implementation.
Exhibit 3 (next page) outlines the process of scaffolding in terms of writing and digi-
tal imagery skills. Stepping the students from the bottom to the top of this pyramid

24.
20 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
invoking a form of cultural identity and honing her skills by putting her emerging
expertise on display to be evaluated by an authentic audience. These are the types
of interest-driven activities that connected youth regularly engage in today. As such,
relevant cultures and communities, rooted in either the digital world or local con-
text, can have powerful transformative potential when integrated within learning
activities. These types of authentic activities could be leveraged in formal learning
environments more frequently as a way to increase engagement and support learning
by underserved students.
Underserved students benefit from learning activities that provide them with op-
portunities to drive their own learning. These include learning opportunities that
allow students to become content creators. This type of student agency was featured
in three different studies and manifested in a variety of ways. It included the use of
technology to provide students with a choice of instructional materials, and allow
them to become active agents in their learning (e.g., making decisions about how a
task was done) (Watson & Watson, 2011). Similarly, technology was used to allow
students the freedom to determine the structure and framework of learning tasks
when engaged in multimodal content creation (Hall & Damico, 2007). Finally, tech-
nology was used to promote agency in the context of choices about whether or not
to use the technology at all (Edmonds & Li, 2005).
In a study by Hall & Damico (2007), African American high school students attend-
ed a pre-college summer course focused on digital media construction. The course
was aligned to standards put forth by the International Society for Technology in
Education and was focused on meaningful creation of digital texts by students. In
this case, students were able to drive their own learning on multiple levels. First,
students, working in groups of four or five, “were encouraged to explore a social
justice problem related to their respective communities” (p. 82). Thus, they were
given the choice to engage in a topic that was both relevant to their community and
interesting to them. The student teams next exercised agency in the project by choos-
ing to make either a website or an iMovie. The course provided the students with
the skills and resources necessary to complete these learning activities and offered a
choice as to which path they pursued. Finally, students were given complete author-
ity over their plans for completing the project. This included the way the work was
divided among the team, their design choices, and the order in which various parts
of the project were completed. By the end of the summer program, instructors were
facilitating student-driven learning, rather than directing it.
Activities like this one that involve students as content producers show promise in
terms of student engagement, self-efficacy, and attitude towards school and learning.
In a number of studies, students engaged in content creation projects demonstrated
improved engagement, self-efficacy, attitude toward school, and skill development
(Bottge et al., 2006; DeGenarro, 2008; Elam et al., 2012; Figg & McCartney, 2010;
Hall & Damico, 2007; Lang, Waterman, & Baker, 2009). Content production can

25.
21Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
take a number of forms. For instance, students might engage in multimedia con-
tent creation that communicates their ideas and thoughts about culturally relevant
themes and events (Figg & McCartney, 2010; Hall & Damico, 2007; Watson &
Watson, 2011). This may be accomplished through video production (Cohen,
Kahne, Bowyer, Middaugh, & Rogowski, 2012; Harness & Drossman, 2011), digi-
tal storytelling (DeGennaro, 2008; Figg & McCartney, 2010), or in other forms.
In one of the many studies illustrating the effective use of technology as an inter-
active tool for both practicing skills and creating new content, Maninger (2006)
studied several ninth grade English classrooms with large numbers of at-risk stu-
dents—including many who had previously failed English and were predicted to fail
the state ninth grade reading test—ultimately outperformed other higher-tracked
classes in their school on the state tests. These other classes included both on-level
and Advanced Placement sections who studied the same material without technol-
ogy supports. In the technology-rich classroom that was developed for the classes of
at-risk students, the teacher used one-to-one computers with wireless connections to
the Internet to engage students in:
word processing, spreadsheet, database, web page production and
presentation software in a variety of contexts. This flexibility pro-
vided an environment that was fun and exciting for the students.
Students produced research­based websites in place of research pa-
pers, and they discussed points of literature in BLOGS, instead of
traditional handwritten journals. All of this closely resembled the
world of today’s teenagers that includes instant messaging, email and
web-based gaming.
The teacher used the laptops often and planned a special unit of con-
centrated use at least once each six-week grading period. For example,
prior to a unit of study she would ask the students to use the laptops
for discovery exercises such as web quests or museum tours. She
also required the students to use advanced organizer software on the
laptops to map out a paper before they began to write…An assign-
ment concerning the Holocaust exemplifies the kind of research-based
websites produced by the students. The teacher introduced the unit of
study with discussion and lecture. The topics covered historical aspects
and relevant current issues that tie to examples of genocide in the
world today. Next, the teacher provided the students with pertinent
information on citation style and writing tips. The classes then spent
several days in the library accessing the Internet and books that they
could use as a foundation for their research. The teacher then asked
the school’s instructional technology specialist to visit the classroom
and establish web space and folders for the students on the school’s
server. The teacher spent the next few days teaching the students how

26.
22 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
to use webpage construction software and troubleshooting their ef-
forts. The students were required to have a home page, three sub-pag-
es and a reference page; each of these pages was required to be linked
to each other. They were required to have at least two pictures and
no more than four per page. Each student was required to plan their
website in a storyboard format, and the project was graded using a
predetermined rubric. (Maninger, 2006, p. 40-41)
The students, who had previously demonstrated behavioral problems and high rates
of failure on the state test, were highly motivated. The researcher and the teacher
attributed this to the use of technology to engage students in projects in which they
would have high levels of agency and give them opportunities to practice materials
that they would later encounter on the state test. When asked what it was about the
use of technology that improved the students’ achievement, the teacher responded:
It gives them an atmosphere of active learning. They are involved in
their learning at all times, they make their own learning decisions, and
they buy into [the classroom]….With the assistance of technology, I
am able to differentiate my instruction to meet the needs of individual
students; they know that and want to be a part of that kind of atmo-
sphere. (Maninger, 2006, p. 43)
One key to content creation projects is the use of scaffolding: guiding the students
through a series of increasingly more complex activities that build on one another.
Scaffolds may include “visuals, such as storyboards or graphic images” that stimu-
late prior knowledge, increase recall of key insights, and encourage imagination
(Figg & McCartney, 2010, p. 54). Motivation and self-esteem are further enhanced
when content creation tasks are culturally relevant and accessible, and take into ac-
count students’ interests (Figg & McCartney, 2010; Hall & Damico, 2007).
The cases detailed above are clear illustrations of the way content creation might
look as a single ongoing project. An alternative example comes from Lang et al.
(2009), who worked with 55 Latino adolescents on a number of shorter content cre-
ation projects. In this study, students attended 16 2-hour sessions that met weekly.
Within these sessions, each student had a computer and engaged in original content
creation projects, such as the production of posters using Broderbund The Print
Shop software that advertised positive traits about a student’s ethnic group. In an-
other lesson, students were asked to create materials for a business they envisioned
themselves starting. They used software such as Microsoft Excel to track expenses,
The Print Shop to advertise to potential employees, and Microsoft FrontPage to
mock up a website for their business. Although this instantiation of content creation
differs in terms of scope, it shares common characteristics with the earlier illustra-
tions, including cultural relevance, interest-driven activities, structured choices, and
student agency within the learning activity. Historically, these types of activities are

27.
23Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
associated with yearbooks, school newspapers, and slides for oral presentations, but
the underlying characteristics could be designed into much smaller content creation
projects such as blog posts, comments on articles, article annotations, social shares,
tweets, or even emails. For content creation to support learning outcomes, the
scope, task, and digital tool must be well aligned to the other elements of the Digital
Learning Ecosystem. When these elements are well coordinated and scaffolded,
underserved students often benefit from the opportunity to drive their own learning,
create original digital content, engage meaningfully with content knowledge, or hone
their digital literacy skills.

28.
24 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Conclusion
chool technology access has become an issue of national priority. With increased
access to technology on the horizon, educators stand at a crossroads. Do they
continue with the status quo or attempt to use the rising technology levels to
support those students who need it the most? Research on technology for learning
by underserved students has revealed that patterns of technology use and access vary
along socioeconomic and demographic lines. Underserved students use technology
to practice basic skills far more frequently than others, and these types of drill and
practice activities contribute little to actual learning. Additionally, evidence indicates
that these students experience stronger learning benefits from tasks that promote
higher order thinking skills. These are not, however, the types of opportunities
that underserved youth commonly experience (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
These findings indicate that educators who continue with the status quo are likely to
reinforce patterns of inequity, not solely in terms of access to technology but also in
terms of how the technology is used. Although issues of equitable access are far from
resolved, the rising tide of technology access necessitates a new wave of dialogue
dedicated to identifying and disseminating promising practices for technology use
that support learning by underserved students.
We hope to contribute to this dialogue in two ways. First, we introduce the Digital
Learning Ecosystem as an empirically grounded framework that provides a holistic
perspective of the mutually interdependent variables shaping a technology-enabled
learning environment. The application of this framework has both benefits and
limitations. A major benefit of the Digital Learning Ecosystem is that it provides a
detailed picture of the variables that are present when students are learning with
technology. In this framework, we begin to see how these interconnected elements
collectively mediate student outcomes. As such, the framework can be applied in
either research or practice. As a research tool, the Digital Learning Ecosystem can
be used to frame inquiry and situate findings. In practice, it can be used to support
strategic planning, preparation, or evaluation. As districts, schools, and teachers
prepare to use new digital tools or transform their existing digital practices, they can
use the Digital Learning Ecosystem to identify elements within their systems that are
strongly aligned and those that need additional support. We recommend that schools
and districts use this tool to take inventory of where they currently stand in terms of
digital learning, map their short- and long-term digital learning goals, and determine
the supports and scaffolds that will be put in place to drive the school community
from point A to point B.
The limitation of this framework is that it fails to take into account variables that
were not highlighted by the researchers and educators within the studies reviewed.
Examples of missing variables include peer interactions as well as district, state, and
national policies. Each of these variables influences the learning environment, which
S

30.
26 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Our review of the literature indicates that within the technology sphere best
practices for supporting underserved youth include one-to-one access to devices
and high-speed Internet connectivity. Additionally, technology tools that promote
student engagement with data and provide a variety of interactions with complex
content in multiple forms were identified as features of digital learning resources
that support underserved students. These resources best support learning when they
promote high levels of interactivity and allow students to discover insights about
complex concepts (rather then receiving direct instruction on the concepts). These
recommendations for infrastructure, access, and digital learning resources were
evident in literature published between 2003 and 2013. Given the rapid technology
evolution cycles and the shift in national adoption patterns, this list of promising
practices in the technology sphere should not be considered comprehensive. In fact,
by the time this article reaches publication, it will already be time for a new review
of recent literature and evaluation of emerging practices.
Our recommendations related to context have slightly more staying power be-
cause the rate of change for formal learning environments is far slower than tech-
nology evolution cycles. In the literature related to the learning context, we found
positive outcomes for students when digital learning activities were used to sup-
port the development of higher order thinking skills, when learning activities drew
on relevant culture and community, and when students were drivers of their own
learning, developing expertise and creating original content. These contextual
features broadly frame the types of learning activities and learning objectives that
guide all aspects of instruction, not just the moments that integrate technology.
Successful long-term adoption of these kinds of objectives and activities is par-
tially dependent on their alignment with other elements of the learning context,
including but not limited to the curricular ideology and values of the school com-
munity, teachers’ beliefs and experiences related to technology, classroom culture,
and the time available for the activity.
From this review, we have arrived at the recommendations described above, and
we consider these to be our second potential contribution to the growing dialogue
about technology for learning by underserved students. We expect that this list
will be revised and built upon as technology and context in U.S. schooling each
continue to evolve.
Finally, our conclusions have arisen through the analysis of studies of specific stu-
dents at a particular place, in a particular time, using a particular technology. Each
study accounted for some, but certainly not all, of the factors that enabled or limited
success for underserved students, and no single study provides detailed information
about all of the variables in the Digital Learning Ecosystem. So, for those who seek
to apply these recommendations, remember they are not an instructional manual
for digital learning. Instead, they are merely guidelines intended to stimulate think-
ing and mobilize change. As we endeavor to use technology to support learning by

31.
27Promising Practices: A Literature Review
of Technology Use by Underserved Students
our nation’s underserved students, we must remember that the most immediately
relevant beacons always come from within. Data about what is working and what
is not working in your classroom, school, or district are more relevant and up-to-
date than any academic article or national report. Interpreting these data within the
Digital Learning Ecosystem can shed light on the multiple factors enabling or limit-
ing student success as digital tools are utilized in new ways. There is utility in know-
ing what are widely considered to be promising practices, but these are only the
starting point. The end point is when you find what works for your students in your
school(s) with your technology today—especially if what is working today is prepar-
ing your students for the world they will encounter tomorrow and the day after, let
alone the world they will inherit in the years to come.

32.
28 Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
Endnotes
1. The initial 23 reports and reviews synthesized literature on digitally mediated learning for
students in grades 6–12 but was not limited to literature specifically reporting outcomes
for minority, low-SES, and underprepared students. This collection was used specifically
to develop the Digital Learning Ecosystem as a frame for analyzing factors that influence
learning with technology. Later, the literature search for empirical works specifically re-
porting outcomes for minority, low-SES, or underprepared students in grades 6–12 yielded
34 studies. These articles were coded and analyzed. Results of this analysis are presented
in the findings section. See Appendix A for a detailed account of the literature search and
analysis processes.
2. Watson and Watson (2011) also found real-time digital feedback essential for successful
digital learning experiences; they elaborate on the benefits of feedback, including helping
students feel successful.